TRUE MODE OF RECOXSTRUCTION. 



SPEECH 



OP 



HON. GEORGE F. MILLER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 21, 18GC. 



The House, as in Committee of the "Whole on the 
state of the Union, having under consideration the 
President's annual message- 
Mr. MILLER snid: 

Mr. Speaker : Much has been said in regard 
to reconstruction, and as it is one of the most 
momentous c[uestions that has ever devolved 
upon Congress since the formation of our Gov- 
ernment, it is well that it has attracted the seri- 
ous consideration of both Houses of Congress. 
The wicked rebellion having been crushed, 
the next great question for us to legislate is, to 
try to prevent a similar outbreak ; and to this 
Congress the nation looks for a guarantee of 
permanent security. The Union, in legal con- 
templation, is perpetual. It is much older than 
the Constitution formed by the Articles of Asso- 
ciation of 1774. matured and continued by the 
Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1770. 
It was further matured, and the faith of the 
then thirteen States expressly plighted and en- 
gaged that it should be pei'petual, by the Arti- 
cles of Confederation of 1778, and finally in 
1787 the declared objects for ordaining and 
establishing the Constitution were "to form a 
more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity." Thus the ori- 
ginal thirteen States were by solemn compact 
cemented together. And the third section of 
the fourth article of the Constitution provides 
that new States may be admitted by Congress 
into this Union. 

Has any State which formed a part of this 
Union a right, under the Constitution, to se- 
cede? That right is nowhere admitted in that 
sacred instrument, but the very contrary is 
inculcated. 

Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Cohen 
vs. Virginia, G Wheaton, 300, says: 

" The people made the Constitution and the people 
can unmake it ; it is the creature of their -will and 
lives only by their will. But the supreme invi.-iblc 
power tomake or unmake resides only in the whole 
body of the people; not in any subdivision of them. 
The attemptof any of the parts to exercise it is usur- 
pation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the 
people have delegated their power of repelling it." 



Mr. Madison in his letter to Mr. Trist, in 
1822, says: 

" I partake ofwonder that the man you namcshould 
view secession in the light mentioned. The essential 
difference between a free Government and a Govern- 
ment not free is that the former is bounded on cora- 
pact, the parties to which are mutually and equally 
bound by it ; neither of them, thercfurc, havo a greater 
right to break off from the bargain than the others 
have to hold them to it, and certainly there is noth- 
ing in the Virginia resolutions of 1798 adverse to this 
principle, which is that of common sense and com- 
mon justice. The fallacy which draws a different 
conclusion lies in confounding a single party with the 
parties to a constitutional compact of the United 
States; the latter having made the compact may do 
what they will with it, the former, as only one of the 
parties, owes fidelity to it till released by cou.*<ent or 
absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power cre- 
ated. It is high time that the claim to secede at will 
should be put down by public opinion." 

Also ]\Ir. Madison, in his letter to Mr. Ever- 
ett in 1830, said: 

" It [the Constitution] was formed by the govern- 
ments of the component States, as the Federal Gov- 
ernment for which it wns substitute*! was formed; 
nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the 
United States as a single community, in the manner 
of a consolidated Government. It was formed by the 
States— that is by the people in each of the States 
] acting in their highest capacity, and formed conse- 
quently by the same authority which formed the 
State constitutions. 
p "Being thus derived from the same source a." the 
11 constitution of the States, it has within each State 
I' the same authority as the constitution of the State, 
! and as much a constitution in the strict sense of tho 
! term, within its prescribed sphere, as the constitution 
I of the States arc within their respective spheros, but 
! I Avith this obvious and essential difference, that being 
' a compact among States in their highest sovereign 
jl capacity, and constituting the people thereof one 
I people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or 
I amended at the will of the State individually, as the 
I constitution of a State may be at its individual will." 
\\ General Jackson, in his letter to Colonel 
|i Hamilton, of November 2, 1812, and the one 
to Mr. Crawford, of May 1, 1833, takes strong 
grounds against the 1-i^ht of secession. In the 
latter he uses this patriotic language: 

"Takecareof vournullifiers; you have them among 
you; let them meet with the indignant frowns ol 
every man who loves his country, llaman's gallows 
ought to be the fate of such ambitious men." 

Yly. Lincoln very ])rop^rly said in liis inau- 
gural address of March 4, ISGl : 
" Physically speaking, we cannot separate ; we can- 






not remove our respective sections from each other, 
nor build an impassable wall between them. A hus- 
band and wife maybe divorced and go outof the 
presence and beyond each other, but the difierent 
parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot 
but remain face to face." 

And in his first message to Congress on the 
4th of July, 1861, he stated that— 

*' The Constitution provides, and all the States have 
accepted the provisions, that the United States shall 
guaranty to every State a republican form of gov- 
ernment, but if a State may lawfully go out of the 
Union, having done so, it may also discard the re- 
publican form of government; so that to prevent its 
going out is an indispensable means to the end of 
maintaining the guarantee mentioned." 

And finally, in his message of 2d of March, 
1862, he repeated that — 

"The Union must be preserved, and hence all 
indispensable means must be employed." 

I need not, however, consume time in citing 
authorities against the right of secession, for 
even Mr. Buchanan, under whose administra- 
tion the rebellion was matured, in his last mes- 
sage, delivered on Tuesday the 4th day of De- 
cember, 18C0,, denied that "secession" could 
be justified as a constitutional remedy, and 
asserted that the principle is wholly inconsist- 
ent with the history as well as the character of 
the Constitution, but said he could not find 
anything in the Constitution to coerce a State 
into submission which is attempting to with- 
draw from the Confederacy, (notwithstanding 
the Constitution which he had sworn to sup- 
port required him to take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed,) and for this dereliction 
of duty his country, on which his adminis- 
tration inflicted so much misery, will hold him 
responsible. 

But again, the seed of secession, for many 
years sown broadcast in the then slave States 
and especially in South Carolina (which was 
the nest of treason) has been eradicated by the 
blood of more than three hundred thousand as 
brave men as the world ever saw who fell 
battling in defense of the flag of this great Re- 
public ; and another great moral victory was 
achieved by this bloody conflict, which was the 
overthrow of a system conceded by every true 
Datriot to be incompatible with a repulDlican 
Ibrm of government, and that is slavery. 

There are eleven States that the leaders of 
the rebellion claim to have seceded, and the 
question has been raised in the discussion as 
to the present status of these States. The hon- 
orable chairman of the committee on recon- 
struction [Mr. Stevens] in an able speech de- 
livered in the House on the 18th day of Decem- 
ber last, takes the ground that these rebel 
States severed their original compact and broke 
all ties that bound them to the Union, and are 
to be treated as conquered provinces, or, to 
use his language — 

"Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, war 
between two acknowledged belligerents severed the 
original compact and broke all ties that bound them 
together ; the future condition of the conquered Power 
depends on the will of the conqueror. They must 
come in as new States, or remain as conquered prov- 
inces." 



And he again remarks in the same speech — 

"I cannot doubt that the late confederate States 

are out of the Union to all intents and purposes for 

which the conqueror may choose to consider them" — 

and cited several authorities which he claims 
to sustain his position, among which are Vat- 
tel, Phillimore, and 2 Black's United States 
Supreme Court Reports, and in a great meas- 
ure assumed the same position in his speech 
of the 10th of March. 

Though I have great respect for the learn- 
ing and statesmanship of my distinguished col- 
league, I cannot subscribe to all the doctrines 
enunciated by him. It may, however, be proper - 
to state here that the honorable gentleman did |( 
not pretend to express the views of the Repub- 
lican party, for in the speech first delivered he, 
with his usual candor and fairness, says : 

" I trust the Republican party will not be alarmed 
at what I am saying ; I do not profess to speak their 
sentiments, nor must they bo held responsible for 
them. I speak for myself and take the responsibility 
for them." 

Nor can I agree in all the views of my 
learned colleague, [Mr. Williams,] although 
his speech, for its learning and research, reflects 
great credit upon its distinguished author, nor 
can I to all contained in the able speech of 
that distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
Shellabarger,] in which is displayed much 
legal learning, and was delivered with great ( 
force. The authorities, however, cited by hira 
do not, in my opinion, sustain his position as 
applicable to the so-called rebel States. The 
two latter gentlemen do not profess to go the 
same length as the former. 1 am certain that 
neither of these distinguished gentlemen will 
concede the right of secession under the Con- 
stitution to any of the States of this Union. 
Then, if no such right exists to peaceably with- 
draw, can the citizens of any State or number 
of States by force, short of a successful revo- 
lution, take such State or States out of this 
Confederacy ? 

I hold that no rebellious act can force a State 
out of the Union; that notwithstanding the 
rebellion, it still remains a part and parcel of 
it, as much as an arm is an integral part of the 
human body ; though, owing to the rebellion, 
it may for a time be somewhat paralyzed. I 
would accord to the rebels no such honor as 
having been successful in taking the eleven 
rebel States, or any one of them, out of the 
Union, and now to be treated as conquered 
provinces. But suppose we should admit these 
States had forced themselves out of the Union, 
and no constitutional prohibition adopted, how ^ 
would we stand in regard to the rebel debt? In 
Wheaton' s Elementary International Law, page 
63, it is laid down that — 

"As to public debts, whether duo to or from the 
revolutionized State, a mere change in the' form of 
government or in person of the ruler does not affect 
the obligation. 

"The essential form of the State— that which con- 
stitutes it an independent community— remains the 
same, its accidental form only changed. The debts 
being contracted in the name of the State by its 
authorized agents for its public use, the nation con- 



tinues liable for them, notwithstandins the change 
in its international condition. The new Government 
succeeds to the fiscal rights, and is bound to fulfill 
the fiscal obligations of the former Government. It 
becomes entitled to the public domain and other 
property of the State, and is bound to pay its debts 
previously contracted." 

I cite this authority merely to show the in- 
creased difficulties we might have to encounter 
by adopting the doctrine of the rebel States 
having been out of the Union. 

Considerable has been said as to what is 
required to constitute a State and attempt to 
shov/ that the rebel States, as they are called, 
cannot be "States." In Wheaton's Interna- 
tional Lawj pages 57 and 58, it is said : 

*'A State, as to the individual members of which it 
is composed, is a fluctuating body, but in respect to 
society it is one of the same body of which the ex- 
istence is perpetually kept up by a constant succes- 
sion of new members. This existence continues until 
it is interrupted by some change afi"ecting the being 
of the State. If this change bean internal revolu- 
tion, merely altering the municipal constitution and 
form of government, the State remains the same; it 
neither loses any of its rights nor is it discharged 
from any of its obligations. 

"The habitual obedience of the members of any 
political society to a superior authority must have 
once existed in order to constitute a sovereign State. 
But the temporary suspension of that obedience and 
of that authority in consequence of civil war does 
not necessarily extinguish the being of the State, 
although it may affect for a time its ordinary relation 
with other States." 

And in Vattel, 423, one of the cases cited 
and relied on by my colleague, [Mr. Stevens,] 
it is said : 

"A civil war breaks the bands of society and gov- 
ernment, or at least suspends their force and effect." 

There is no doubt that the civil operations 
of the Government were for awhile suspended 
as regards the rebel States, but that would not 
prevent the Government from exercising that 
right as soon as the rebellion was crushed, nor 
would it be any acknowledgment that these 
States were separated from the Union. Much 
has been said and authorities cited in regard 
to ancient Governments which have but Httle 
application to a Government like ours. We 
may look in vain into ancient history to find 
one constituted like the United States, for even 
in the most enlightened days of the Grecian 
republic piracy was regarded as an honorable 
employment. 

The law of nations, as understood by the 
European world and by us, is the offspring of 
modern times. It is truly said in Phillimore 
on International Law, page 138, (33 Law 
Library, 133:) 

" That the United States of North America fur- 
nishes us the greatest example which the world has 
yet seen of a Federal Government ; that its Consti- 
tution differs materially from the Germanic Confed- 
eration; the latter is a league of sovereign States for 
the common defense against external and internal 
violence, the former is a supreme Federal Govern- 
ment ; it is in fact a composite State, the constitution 
of which affects not only members of the Union but 
all its citizens both in their individual and corpo- 
rate capacities." 

And the same doctrine is recognized in 
Wheaton's International Law, page 92. But 
it has been said that during the four years 



of bloody conflict the so-called rebel States 
were acknowledged by the United States as 
belligerents, and to sustain this theory 2d 
Black's United States Supreme Court Reports, 
which is known as the prize cases, has been 
cited and relied on. It cannot be denied that 
the rebellion against the Government of the 
United States assumed a gigantic form ; that 
the rebel government had enforced obedience 
to its authority over a large region of country, 
and over many millions of people ; that it had 
by force excluded temporarily the operation 
of the laws of the United States ; and that our 
Government has in many ways recognizod the 
contest as a civil war, and from motives of 
policy and humanity could not act strictly upon 
legal principles, l3iit ex necessitate rei adopted 
so much of the civil warfare as would prevent 
indiscriminate slaughter and the infliction of 
unnecessary pain and hardship. 

This was done without in any manner recog- 
nizing the rebel leaders or their organization, 
but constantly denying them to be a Govern- 
ment de facto or dejure. On examination of 
all the proclamations of the President, begin- 
ning with that of the 15th of April, 1861, and 
all the principal laws of Congress, I have not 
been able to find a single executive or legisla- 
tive act which conceded a governmental status 
to the so-called rebel confederacy. The whole 
ground of legislation has been aimed to sup- 
press insurrection, punish treason, and confis- 
cate property of rebels. The most important 
bill on that subject that passed Congress is the 
one approved July 17, 1862, entitled : 

" A bill to suppress insurrection, to punish treason 
and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of 
rebels, and for other purposes." -;. 

The so-called southern confederacy certainly 
was not a Government cle jure; all its actions 
were a gross violation of rights. It was nowhere 
a recognized Government. It was never ad- 
mitted into the family of nations. Every rebel- 
lion or insurrection is in reality a war, and it 
becomes more evidently such when it brings 
hundreds of thousands of men into the field ; 
still, it is only a rebellion, and the citizens of 
the rebellious portion are only rebellious citi- 
zens, over whom the Government jDossesses not 
only all its legal rights, but all those powers 
which a state of war confers upon it. 

As regards the United States, all the ordi- 
nances of secession were null and void, and the 
so-called southern confederacy was an entire 
and complete nullity, and the rebellious people 
may very properly have been treated as rebels 
and enemies. They may be tried as traitors 
and punished. The Supreme Court, in the prize 
cases, decided no more than this, that being 
engaged in a war with rebels the President had 
a right, jui'e belli, to blockade ports in posses- 
sion of States in rebellion, which neutrals were 
bound to regard. There is no intimation of an 
abrogated Constitution or an outside status. 
Had this question been before the court no 
doubt Justice Grier would have adhered to his 



own opinion in case of the pirates, in which 
Ihat eminent judge said: 

"Every Government is bound by the law of self- 
preservation to suppress insurrection, and the fact 
that the number of the insurgents may be so great as 
to carry on a civil war against their legitimate sov- 
ereign will not entitle them to be considered a State. 
The fact that a civil war exists for the purpose of 
suppressing a rebellion is conclusive that the Gov- 
ernment of the United States refuses to acknowledge 
their right to be considered such. Consequently this 
court, sitting here to execute the laws of the United 
States, can view those in rebellion in no other light 
than traitors to their country, and those who assume 
by their authority a right to plunder the property of 
our citizens on the high seas, as pirates and robbers." 

My colleague, [Mr. Stevens,] in his speech, 
recites a few words of what Justice Grier said 
in the prize cases, when speaking in relation 
to insurrections against Governments, as fol- 
lows: 

" When a party in rebellion occupy or hold in hos- |] 
tilemanncr acertain portion of country, havcdeclared ' ' 
their independence, have cast off their allegiance, 
have organized armies, have commenced hostilities 
against their former sovereign, the world acknowl- 
edges them as belligerents, and the contest is a war." 

But in the same paragraph that judge con- 
tinues : 

" They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty 
and independence in order to become a sovereign 
Btate, while the sovereign treats them as insurgents 
and rebels who owe allegiance and who should be 
punished with death." ■ 

This does not conflict with the opinion given 
by that distinguished jurist in the trial of the 
pirates, but is in confirmation of the fact that 
the United States did not acknowledge the 
rebel confederacy as a belligerent. 

It cannot be disputed but that during the 
rebellion the civil laws could not, be enforced 
over those States, and consequently the func- 
tions thereof were in a great measure sus- 
pended. But this fact, as the authorities here- 
intofore cited show, did not place those States 
out of the Union, or destroy their status as 
States, and turn them into Territories. 

During all that trying period there was still 
prevailing (though in a great measure sup- 
pressed) a Union element in those States which 
did much in aiding to crush out the rebellion. 
If there had been found in Sodom and Gomor- 
rah ten righteous men, we are told that those 
cities of the plain would have been saved from 
destruction, and surely more than that number 
of true loyal men could have been found in 
each of the rebel States, even South Carolina 
not excepted. And are we more uncharitable 
than He Avho holds in his hands the destiny of 
worlds ? 

And again, had not the loyal citizens of those 
States a right to claim that they were citizens 
of the United States and entitled to protection 
under the Constitution, as did the inhabitants 
of Rome by claiming that they were Roman 
citizens ? 

In Vattel's Law of Nations, page G, it is laid 
down — 

" If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no 
less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. 
The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of 
one of its members weakens it and is injurious to its 



preservation. It owes this also to the members in 
particular in consequence of the very act of associa- 
tion ; for those who compose a nation are united for 
their defense and common advantage, and none can 
justly be deprived of this union and of the advari- 
tages he expects to derive from it while he on his 
side fulfills the conditions." 

And the same author on the same page fur- 
ther says : 

" The body of a nation cannot, then, abandon a 
province, a town, or even a single individual who is 
a part of it, unless compelled to it by necessity, or 
indispensably obliged to it by the strongest reasons 
founded on the public safety." 

It cannot be denied that East Tennessee had 
during the rebellion a large number of loyal 
citizens. Mr. Lincoln, in his message to Con- . 
gress on the 3d day of December, ISGl, stated: 

" I deem it important that the large region of East 
Tennessee and western North Carolina be connected 
with Kentucky and other faithful parts of the Union 
by railroad." 

On the 4th of May, 18G4, the House passed 
a bill authorizing the President to appoint in 
each State in rebellion a provisional governor, 
with the pay and emoluments of a brigadier 
general, to be charged with the civil adminis- 
tration until a State government therein shall 
be recognized, and prior to that time, to wit, 
on the 20th of January, 1864, President Lin- 
coln ordered an election to be held in Arkansas 
for Governor, &c. ; thus showing that neither 
the action of Congress nor President Lincoln 
had any tendency to treat the rebel States as 
out of the Union or annihilated as States, but 
on the contrary shows the very opposite. 

President Johnson, in his annual message 
of the 4th of December last, says: 

"The perpetuity of the Constitution brings v/ith it 
perpetuity of the States; thus mutual relations make 
us what we are; and in our political system their con- 
nection is indissoluble. The whole cannot exist with- 
out the parts, nor the parts without the whole. So 
long as the Constitution of the United States endures 
the States will endure; the destruction of one is the 
destruction of the other; the preservation of the one 
is the preservation of the other." 

But it is said by my colleague [Mr. Ste- 
vens] that "on the ground of estoppel the 
United States have a clear right to elect to ad- 
judge them out of the Union ;" that "they are 
estopped both by matter of record and matter 
in pais.'''' 

And my able colleague, [Mr. Broomall,] in 
his speech of the 26th of January, says, in 
speaking of the rebel States : 

"Having set up an independent government and 
waged war as a nation, they are estopped from plead- 
ing the right of citizenship to defeat the right of con- 
quest." 

If the latter gentleman's doctrine is tenable, 
then those residing in what aj:e denominated 
the rebel States are no longer citizens of the 
United States, and consequently not amenable 
to her laws, and in that event all laws of Con- 
gress passed to punish rebels would be nugatory. 

But how do the records stand in rega.rd to 
estoppel? It is true that the so-called southern 
confederacy adopted a constitution and passed 
laws, claiming to be independent of the United 
States, and at the same time the United States 



Congress passed stringent laws which denied 
that thosG States were separated from the Uni- 
ted States, and inflicted upon them severe pen- 
alties for their treason. So as regards matter 
of record the United States would be estopped 
from treating these States as out of the Union, 
as well as the rebel States would be by having 
asserted tliey were out. Then as to matter in 
pais. The United States asserted that those 
rebel States had not dissolved their connection 
with the Union, while the rebels on the other 
hand assei'ted they had. So as to matter in pais, 
they would be equally estopped. 

Finally, the contest was by wager of battle 
decided against the rebels. In 7 Casey's Penn- 
sylvania Reports, ooi, Hill el at. vs. Eply, it is 
laid down : 

"If no one be misled to his hurt he will not be 
estopped."' 

Also, in 12 Casey, 522, Brubaker vs. Oakes, 
it is ruled that — 

"It is essential to an estoppel by matter i« pms, 
that he who sets it up is bound to show that he has 
been misled to his hurt." 

And in 3 Hill, 215, Dezell vs. Odel, it is laid 
down that to make an estoppel effectual it 
must show that the party made an admission 
clearly inconsistent with the evidence pro- 
posed to be given, and that the other party 
has acted upon that admission. The United 
States were not misled, for the actions of the 
rebels were well known, and both parties acted 
with full knowledge, and as already indicated, 
were on an equality as to matter of record. So 
that upon no legal principle are the rules of 
estoppel applicable as contended by my two 
colleagues. 

Mr, Speaker, it has been said that if the 
States lately in rebellion were only put in 
abeyance during the war, then at its termina- 
tion they were restored to all the rights they 
possessed prior to the rebellion, and the Pres- 
ident had no right to direct provisional gov- 
ernors to call a convention to amend or form 
a constitution different from the mode desig- 
nated in the constitution in force at the break- 
ing out of the war. And the honorable gen- 
tleman from Ohio [Mr. Shellabarger] refers 
to the actions of the President in regard to 
North Carolina, and recites the clause in the 
old constitution pointing out a mode for alter- 
ing or amending the same. 

Now, owing to the rebellion, great changes 
had taken place. As a war necessity, slaves 
had by proclamation been declared to be 
freed, and the fourth section of the fourth 
article of the Constitution of the United States 
requires that the United States shall guaranty 
to every State in the Union a republican form 
of government, and in order to carry out that 
injunction it was indispensable that a change 
of the constitution should be made, and the 
Government had a right to demand it in order 
that the civil laws, which had to give way to 
the military, could be revived. And as to the 
mode of altering the constitution, though the 



old one points out a method by which amend- 
ments or alterations may bo made, still that 
does not prevent the calling of a convention 
to adopt a ncAv constitution or change the 
former, subject to the ratification of the legal 
voters. That is a right which the sovereign 
people of each State never parted with, and 
he;ice may as often as they choose, by con- 
vention, cbange their constitution so as not 
to be incompatible with that of the United 
States. The Legislature, without a convention, 
can make alterations only in the way pre- 
scribed by the constitution ; but as I have al- 
ready said, that is no bar to a change made 
through a convention, subject to the ratifica- 
tion of the voters ; and for this procedure we 
have a case directly in point in regard to the 
State of Missouri. Article twelve of the con- 
stitution of the 10th of July, 1820 — under 
which it became a State — provides that — 

" The General Assemby may at any time prepare 
such P.mendments to this constitution as two thirds 
of each House shall deem expedient, which shall be 
published in all the newspapers printed in the State 
three several times, at least tAvelve months before 
the next general election, and if, at the first session 
of the General Assembly after such general election, 
two thirds of each House shall by yeas and nays rat- 
ify such proposed amendments, they shall be valid 
to all intents and purposes as part of this constitu- 
tion: Provided, That such proposed amendmentshall 
be read on three several days in each House as well 
when the same are proposed as when they are finally 
ratified." 

Yet, notwithstanding this prescribed mode 
of amendment, the Legislature of that State 
passed, in the year 18G5, a law calling a con- 
I vention which continued in session a few weeks 
I and adopted a constitution which was submit- 
j ted to the people for ratification, (the disloyal 
portion of the community being prohibited 
from voting,) and under that constitution the 
present members of Congress from that State 
were elected and now have seats in this House. 
Tennessee also adopted a constitution in a sim- 
ilar manner. But it has been said that the citi- 
zens did not all vote on tbese questions, that 
some of them were not allowed that right. * 

If they committed such acts as to deprive 
themselves of the right of suffrage it was a fault 
of their own, or if those who had a right neg- 
lected to vote it would not invalidate a con- 
stitution which had a majority af those who did 
vote. All that is required when a matter is 
submitted to the people for their ratification is 
a majority of the votes polled. The Constitu- 
tion of the UnitedStatesprovides that in order 
to make an amendment thereto valid it must 
pass Congress by a vote of two thirds of both 
Houses, and be ratified by the Legislatures of 
three fourths of the several States, or by con- 
vention in three fourths thereof, so that in such 
an important amendment as that abolishing the 
system of slavery we cannot afford to theorize 
as to States being out of the Union or losin* 
their status as States, for there is no telling 
what the L^nited States Supreme Court, as now 
or shall hereafter be constituted, may decide 



I in regard to the States lately in rebellion, and 



6 



if there should not be a ratification by three 
fourths of the entire number of States, (includ- 
ing those lately in rebellion,) and it should 
be determined that in consequence thereof the 
amendment abolishing slavery was invalid, 
then all the lives and treasure sacrificed to 
eradicate from this Republic that accursed sys- 
tem which brought upon the nation so much 
misery would be of no avail. But the Secre- 
tary of State, that far-seeing statesman, (Mr. 
Seward, ) who through the four years of terrible 
conflict managed the affairs of state so ably and 
kept us out of foreign wars, provided for the 
contingency so as to avoid all cavil. That gen- 
tleman, in his published certificate in form of 
proclamation of the 18th of December, 1865, 
recites the amendments, to wit: 

" Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party 
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within 
the United States or any place subject to their juris- 
diction. 

"Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation." 

And then proceeds as follows : 

"And whereas it appears from ofi&cial documents 
on file in this Department that the amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, proposed as 
aforesaid, has been ratified by the Legislatures of the 
States of Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan, Mary- 
land, New York, West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Mas- 
sachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, 
Nevada, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Vermont, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, New 
Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, North Caro- 
lina, and Georgia, in all twenty-seven States ; and 
whereas the whole number of States in the United 
States is thirty-six; and whereas the before specially 
named States whose Legislatures have ratified the 
said proposed amendment constitute three fourths 
of the whole number of States in the United States: 
Now, therefore, be it known that I, William H. Sew- 
ard, Secretary of State, by virtue and in pursuance 
of the second section of the act of Congress, approved 
the 20th of April, 1818, entitled *An act to provide 
for the publication of the laws of the United States, 
and for other purposes,' do hereby certify that the 
amendment aforesaid has become valid to all intents 
and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the 
United States." 

It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that seven 
of the above-named States that ratified said 
amendment had been with what was called 
the ' ' southern confederacy. ' ' Surely it would 
not do for us now to say that the States so rati- 
fying the amendment are not States within 
the Union. I might add that the Legislatures 
of California and New Jersey have since also 
ratified the amendment, while those of Ken- 
tucky and Delaware persistently refuse. 

Mr. Speaker, we have heard on this floor, 
portrayed witli zeal and eloquence, the bar- 
barities committed by the rebels upon the 
Union soldiers, and the desecration of our 
dead, yea, even the murder of our venerable 
President. Now, sir, if it would restore to us 
again our much- esteemed President ; to the 
bereaved parents, their sons ; to the widow, her 
husband; to the orphan children, their fathers 
and protectors who fell in defense of this Re- 
public ; to the maimed their amputated limbs, 
and restore to health the shattered constitu- 
tions of our surviving soldiers, I would be 



willing — if the Constitution would allow it — to 
see the rebel States annihilated. 

But that restoration cannot be had ; our no- 
ble dead must sleep until the sound of Gabri- 
el's trumpet. Though there are no marks to 
designate the resting-place of some, yet their 
noble deeds will be engraven upon the hearts 
of a grateful nation ; while those who fell fight- 
ing to destroy our free institutions, if not to- 
tally forgotten, will only be remembered as reb- 
els and traitors, and not as the honorable gen- 
tleman from New York [Mr. Raymond] said, 
in comparing them to our dead, " The dead of 
the contending hosts sleep beneath the soil of 
a common country under the common flagj 
their hostilities are hushed, and they are the 
dead of the nation forevermore." Sir, those 
who were trying to take the heart's blood of 
the nation deserve no such eulogy. Again, it 
has been asked, " How long may this nation 
survive with Senators elected by rebel Legisla- 
tures, or by treaties made by Senators chosen 
by rebel States?" 

This, Mr. Speaker, is rather a patriotic ap- 
peal ; but if the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives stand firm there will be no danger 
of such getting seats in either branch. 

The sixth section of the third article of the 
Constitution of the United States provides 
that — 

"Each House shall be the judge of the election, 
returns, and qualifications of its members." 

We must not look at these questions as an 
advocate employed for his client, nor let our 
feelings betray our judgment, but view them 
as statesmen. 

Mr. Speaker, we have been repeatedly told 
on this floor that we ought to be cautious about 
admitting Representatives from the States lately 
in rebellion, but no particular plan for their 
admission has been clearly defined. 

It seems to me that if Congress would sub- 
mit to the respective States a few important 
amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States, they would be ratified, and all this com- 
plication avoided. It would have been better 
if this course had been pursued immediately 
after the assembling of the present Congress. 

Theframersof the Constitution contemplated 
that the time might arrive when amendments 
would be necessary, and therefore provided a 
method for its accomplishment. It would be 
strange if, after a period of upward of seventy 
years in this progressive age, amendments 
would not be found necessary ; though I think, 
they ought to be as few as practicable. 

Yet I do not agree with the honorable gen- 
tleman from New York, [Mr. Raymond,] who, 
in speaking of the Constitution, says he " looks 
upon all propositions for its amendment with 
hesitation and distrust." How any statesman 
can "hesitate and distrust" about the prac- 
ticability of amending the Constitution to cor- 
respond with the times and circumstances I 
cannot imagine. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would 
propose: first, that the Representatives in 



Congress shall be apportioned among the sev- 
eral States according to the number of qualified 
voters in each State. Secondly, that neither 
of the States of the Union shall ever assume 
or pay any part of the debt of the so-called 
confederate States of America, or of any State 
contracted in carrying on war against the Uni- 
ted States ; and, thirdly, that the Constitution 
be amended by striking out that clause which 
says: 

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported 
from any State." 

According to the estimate of my colleague, 
[Mr. Stevexs,] a small tax on exportation of 

• cotton alone would amount to $100,000,000 
annuall}' — a sum which would do much toward 
paying off our war debt. It is not likely it 
would be laid on any other product. These 
are all the amendments I deem necessary. 

There can be no doubt that under the Con- 
stitution each State has a right to regulate the 
qualifications of its own electors, and Congress 
has no right to assume that authority. In the 
District of Columbia Congress has exclusive 
jurisdiction, and may there regulate the right 
of suffrage, which is of very little practical 
importance, as none but municipal officers are 
elective in the District. According to the con- 
stitution of Pennsylvania, none but "white free- 
men of the age of twenty-one years, having re- 
sided in the State one year," &c., are entitled 
to the right of suffrage, and before that can be 
changed there must be an alteration in the con- 
stitution of that State. As to the freedmen, 
the amendment already adopted gives Congress 
sufficient authority to legislate for their protec- 
tion. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the most 
important amendment needed is that of repre- 
sentation according to the vote ; for while it 
must be conceded that each State has a right 
to regulate the right of suffrage, yet if the col- 
ored man is deprived of a vote he should not be 
counted in the representation ; to simplify it, 
no other one ought to vote for him. If these 
three amendments were adojDted, and especially 
the first, and the States lately in rebellion should 

^end loyal men as representatives, they ought to 
be admitted ; and if this arrangement could be 
made, I see no difficulty in regard to representa- 
tion from those States. But Congress ought 

k never to admit to a seat any man who has vol- 
untarily borne arms against the United States, 
and of their qualification each House is the judge. 
President Johnson, in his annual message, says: 

" It is for you, fellow-citizens of the House of Rep- 
resentatives to judge, each of you for yourselves, of 
the election, returns, and qualifications of your own 
members." 

I have not time to review all the arguments 
from the Democratic side of this House, but if 
the gentlemen from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] 
and the late member from Indiana (Mr. Yoor- 
hees) express the views of their party, they 
would be willing to admit to seats on this floor 
rebels whose hands have been stained with the 
blood of our Union soldiers. 



{ I If we were to determine that the States lately 
II in rebellion could only be admitted as new 
I States, after presenting an acceptable consti- 
!| tution, and upon that basis receive them back, 
"what would prevent them immediately after 
from changing their constitution in any way 
they saw fit, provided it was not inconsistent 
Avith that of the United States? So that the 
only safeguard is" the amending of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, which will be a 
sufficient barrier against all innovations ; and 
if those States are sincere as to their returned 
loyalty they will have no hesitation through 
their Legislatures to join in ratifying the mate- 
rial amendments, and especially that of repre- 
sentation. 

It is true a bitter feelinghas prevailed against 
some of the rebel States for their treasonable 
course, and especially South Carolina, and that 
is not to be wondered at when we take into con- 
sideration the unparalleled misery they have 
brought upon the country ; but it is hoped they 
have repented in sackcloth and ashes, and, as 
some evidence of that, we find even South Car- 
olina ratifying the amendment abolishing their 
favorite institution of slavery, while Kentucky 
and Delaware, professing to be loyal States, 
refuse. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the two 
Houses of Congress will see the vast importance 
of having the requisite amendments to the Con- 
stitution speedily passed and submitted to the 
States for ratification. Then, after being rati- 
fied by the Legislatures of three fourths of the 
States, without fear of not being able to carry 
out the injunction of guarantying to every 
State in this Union a republican form of gov- 
ernment, Representatives from those States 
lately in rebellion who can take the oath pre- 
scribed by existing laws can be admitted to seats 
in Congress ; and it is due to such men as May- 
nard. Colonel Stokes, Colonel Hawkins, Ar- 
nell. Fowler, and others, who, in the nation's 
struggle, stood up for right and freedom, to be 
cared for. It was easy to be a Union man in 
the loyal States, surrounded by friends of the 
Republic, (and even there I am sorry to have 
to say that some were to be found sympathizing 
with treason,) but in the rebellious States it 
required the nerve of a Socrates to be loyal to 
his country Avhere his personal liberty, life, 
property, and all that is dear to man were in 
peril. Even Alexander H. Stephens, who for a 
time so eloquently raised his voice against trea- 
son and clung to the horns of the altar of lib- 
erty, was, in the hour of trial and temptation, 
induced by the offer of a vice presidency in the 
so-called southern confederacy to let go that 
which he professed to love and revere, and 
turned his back against his country. 

When war was raging it Avas necessary, for 
the preservation of the Union and to weaken 
the hands of the enemies of the Republic, to 
devastate the country in possession of the 
insurgents ; but as the rebellion is now ended, 
it is the duty of the nation to foster and build 
it up I and by proper encouragement, with the 



8 



blessings of free labor, evidenced by true loy- 
alty, those States will exhibit in a few years 
one of the brightest spots in this Republic. 
My distinguished colleague, [Mr. Williams,] 
in speaking of the States lately in rebellion. 



" Eleven of the columnar supports of our political 
edifice are now lying around us, like the grand col- 
umns of Tadmor and Palmj-ra, with shaft and capi- 
tal and architrave alike shattered by the mighty con- 
vulsion that has laid them all in ruins. " 

And asks: 

" Where is the hand that is to lift these columns to 
their place?" 

Mr. Speaker, though the metaphor is beau- 
tiful, I do not agree with the honorable gentle- 
man that eleven of the States of this Union are 
lying around 'Mike the grand columns of Tad- 
mor and Palmyra." The shock, it is true, was 
great, but they stood erect in the storm like the 
mighty oak of the forest, but came out somewhat 
scarred.' But the leaders who caused this terri- 
ble conflict deserve condign punishment. The 
Government officials deserve great credit for 
causing the arrest, trial, and execution of Wirz, 
who M'as proved to be a monster, and for his 
barbarities to the Union prisoners deserved 
no better fate than that which was meted out 
to him ; still he was but a subordinate, and it 
is not right that the chief officers should escape 
punishment. I agree with what was said by an 
eminent judge in my State, that '■'■ the greater 
the man, the greater the example." 

Treason ought to be made odious, and there 
should be no procrastination in the trial of 
such offenders ; the leading spirits should be 
the first brought to justice, and it is hoped that 
that part of the last annual message of Presi- 
dent Johnson, in which he says — 

" It is manifest that treason, most flagrant in char- 
acter, has been committed. Persons who are charged 
with its commission should have fair and impartial 
trials in the highest civil tribunals of the country, in 
order that the Constitution and the laws may bo fully 
vindicated ; the truth clearly established and affirmed 
that treason is a crime, that traitors should be pun- 
ished, and the offense made odious"— 

may be speedily carried into effect, though I 
cannot well see why the leading traitors in the 
rebellion could not have been tried by a mil- 
itary commission as well as Wirz. I look upon 
John C. Breckinridge as one of the vilest trai- 
tors, and I trust an effort will bo made to have 
him arrested, tried, and punished ; and I might 
say that officers who held high militai-y posi- 
tions under the United States, and with the 
knowledge acquired as to the position of af- 



fairs, turned traitors and joined the rebel armiy, 
ought not to be permitted to stalk about the 
country. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, though I differ somewhat 
with some of our leading members of the Repub- 
lican party in this House as to the status of the 
States lately in rebellion, I agree with them that 
none but true, loyal Representatives ought to 
be admitted to seats from those States, and that 
we should have, as a safeguard, proper amend- 
ments to the Constitution of the United States. 
It is hoped that the joint committee on re- 
construction may mature some acceptable plan, 
which will meet the approbation of bothbranches 
of Congress and of the President, for the speedy '' 
adjustment of the perplexed questions that now 
agitate the country. 1 do not agree with the 
honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. 
Raymond,] that we do not get much informa- 
tion from that committee. It is composed of 
i gentlemen of strict integrity, and experienced 
I statesmen, who have been laboring assiduously 
to procure all the information possible to lay 
I before Congress, and, when a full report is 
I made, will no doubt give us definite informa- 
I tion as to the situation of affairs in the States 
I lately in rebellion, and be of great imijortance 
I to the whole country. I would here remark 
that the honorable chairman of the committee, 
(my colleague,) vv^ho has already passed the*" 
i period of life usually assigned to man, for his 
devotion to and toil in behalf of his country , 
deserves great credit; and I pray that his life 
: may be spared until the great questions that > 
now so much interest the nation may be ad- 
justed so that all the States can be represented 
■ in the councils of the nation. 

If, Mr. Speaker, this great Republic, now 
extending from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf 
of Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific 
ocean, and from which the dark stain of slavery 
has been eradicated, and the Gospel, education, 
and civil rights extended to all classes, with a 
i Constitution which, according to the language 
; of Chief Justice Marshall, in Cohens vs. Viv- 
! ginia, (6 Wheaton, 387,) is formed for ages to 
\ come, and is designed to approach immortality^ 
as near as human institutions can approach it; 
and if the citizens are true and loyal, and put 
their trust in Him who holds in His hands the 
; destinies of nations, this Republic Avill endure^iJ 
as a shining light until the end of time, show- 
; ing to the world that man is capable of self- 
government, and that this is truly "the land 
of the free and home of the brave." 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



